Most people gain their understandings of best public health practices from the statements of authorities they trust. Unfortunately, a lot of nuance is lost when people get their information second, third, or fourth-hand.
No proof
If anything, I hope this pandemic helps to normalize mask wearing. People’s mouths and noses are disgusting, and a common source of non-lethal aerosolized diseases. Prior to COVID people used to sneeze and cough all over everything in public without even thinking about it, and I used to get colds all the time. Haven’t even got the sniffles since masks became mandated. Sure, sample size of one, and all. I’ll probably continue to wear a mask in public after this all goes away. When I see an unmasked face now, I mentally think “disease carrier” and avoid. We really could use this small norm-change society-wide.
All well and good as long as everyone buys into social distancing. Unfortunately plenty of people believe in neither masks nor social distancing, so you can't trust that people (strangers in the same vicinity) will stay 6ft apart.
Passing someone on a sidewalk means you're within 6 feet for maybe 5 seconds, which would constitude about 0.5% of such a "close contact" exposure.
They also say that several factors with insufficient data mean that it's unclear how things like ventilation, indoor vs outdoor, mask vs no mask, etc, affect the exposure assessment.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracin...
(Addendum: there’s the obvious question, why not just wear a mask 100% of the time? There are no downsides, right? — There can be. Perhaps my mask had been in use for a while, I suspect it’s gotten dirty enough to be a potential health hazard, but I don’t have another mask to replace it? I’d still use it if people are around, but would try to reduce my exposure to it otherwise. Maybe I have asthma or some type of breathing difficulty, and wearing a mask makes it worse? I think those two are probably among the most common reasons.)
This behavior seems to be part of Call Out Culture.
I think not wearing masks again will be easy to normalise. For example, Hong Kong got hit by the first SARS and everyone wore a mask for a time, and then when it was over all was back to normal and masks quickly became rare.
Larger countries (including the US) that are more sparsely populated and tend to rely on central messaging from authorities less will probably have areas that are slower at adopting new measures (or lack thereof), which may be frustrating, but I imagine large cities will be able to react promptly.
The societal norm/expectation that we wear clothing in public is no big deal. Why can’t we have a similar mask-wearing norm? I don’t see many anti-clothers protesting city hall over their right to go naked.
Hopefully that’s not how things work, or the effect has no practical significance.
Second best option, we’ll find a way to compensate for that.
Else, maybe we shouldn’t normalise masks to such a degree except for periods when it’s necessary.
Another side-effect is that masks should be replaced regularly, so everyone wearing masks at all times would mean a lot of waste (hopefully bio-degradable).
>FACT: People should NOT wear masks while exercising
>People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably.
>Sweat can make the mask become wet more quickly which makes it difficult to breathe and promotes the growth of microorganisms. The important preventive measure during exercise is to maintain physical distance of at least one meter from others.
How close did these people get to you when trying to express their concern?
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a32097735/coronavirus-viral-s...
Personally these days, for outdoors, I use the following algorithm:
1. Over 6 feet away from people: Wear a mask below the nose (so I can have it ready for state #2 below, when needed).
2. Under 6 feet away from someone (even if just passing them by): Wear a mask properly (i.e. over the mouth AND nose).
Edit: Formatting.
As for my personal set of rules: if I can distance 12 feet I don't wear one. If I am frequently passing people (on sidewalks or trails) I keep it on. If it is fairly empty and I pass someone every once in a while, I keep the mask in my hand and breath through it when I pass someone.
Why not just take it off? I want to have easy access to move it up when needed. I am typically just walking and the weather is cool these days, so I do not experience sweating. Also since the hot air is not exhaled directly into the mask, it prevents/slows down the heating of the mask.
Why not wear it fully? I find it easier sometimes to breathe without a mask. So, when it is safe to do so, I lower it.
That's extremely obnoxious behavior, even though you're likely right on the low risks of transmission in sparse outdoor settings.
Wait wait wait...why should everyone be required to cater to the most paranoid people in the world, or be considered "obnoxious"? Where does this end? If I walk down the street, and someone twenty feet away from me scowls at me because I'm not wearing a mask, that's objectively their problem, not mine.
If you're so scared that you can't stand the idea of someone else being outside without obeying your rules, then perhaps you should reconsider being outside in the first place.
For anyone that lives in the area, the worst are the Nederland residents. Territorial assholes when there isn't a pandemic, and now they feel empowered to really let you have it. Going 10 miles south to trails in Jefferson County, and as long as you stay 6 feet or more, people smile and tell you to have a nice hike.
I doubt the person upthread is doing this though, given that he seems to be going close enough to people that they can stop and scold him.
Is that obnoxious?
The only accurate way is to quantify the risk, rather than blindly assert "extremely obnoxious behavior".
People act like “but cars kill more people!” is an argument in favor of whatever dangerous thing they’re talking about, not an argument against the way cars and roads are designed and operated.
Here's an idea, you can already keep them in business, order delivery w/ no-contact delivery.
Yes, life is certainly inconvenienced, but what's the alternative? Is going out to dinner worth directly or indirectly killing another human being over?
Spoken like a true narcisist. This is the exact behavior that produces the continued rise in cases across the country.
> I certainly haven't seen the evidence that these are risky activities.
Well, I'm glad you've appointed yourself epidemiologist-in-chief.
> You can't eliminate any risk without literally putting everyone in quarantine by themselves.
No, you can eliminate much of the risk by isolating with your household, occupation permitting.
A little compassion for people would go a long way.
Could you elaborate on what "prolong" means? Say we shut down the entire country for 4 weeks and get the virus under control. Is the pandemic now "over" (i.e. no longer prolonged) and we can reopen restaurants again at full capacity and just treat individual outbreaks? Or is it going to be cyclical where cases start rising again and the governors start cracking down again ad infinitum? For island nations that can control who goes in and out it's one thing, but it's going to be very hard for USA or EU which has open borders between states to control spread of contagious disease.
So it's "extremely obnoxious" when the OP "imposes their estimates of safety on others", and the correct response is for the OP to allow the misinformed estimates of safety of the others to require a mask be pulled up.
Why stop there? Some people think that a neck gaiter or cloth mask isn't enough. Why not wear an N95 outdoors since some people "wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing [N95] masks, even outdoors".
Who gets to draw the line between obeying the science vs obeying the theatrical needs of the anxious ignoramuses? Surface transmission isn't a factor with this virus, and yet I know a few folks who still insist on disinfecting every box they come in contact with. They are welcome to do that, but it's certainly not following the science. Am I to cater to these people to?
The science should! Here's what the CDC says for high intensity activities:
"Masks should be used in public settings, but if you are unable to wear a mask because of difficulty breathing during high intensity activities, choose a location with greater ventilation and air exchange (for instance, outdoors versus indoors) and where you can keep at least 6 feet from others during the activity."
The trails and parks around here (North Carolina) have enough traffic and people who believe "I do what I want" that I don't feel comfortable visiting these places period.
This is precisely the insufferable safety-ism that characterizes the 21st century.
If you feel particularly at risk in the case of infection, and you'd wish to avoid infection - stay inside and isolate.
Isn't completely fair to say that the frail among us are imposing on everyone else outdoors keeping healthy and not depressed by exercising, etc?
If you "may wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing masks": stay home!
None at all. I’ve taken to getting my daily exercise in the early morning and late evening just to avoid talking to/arguing with my neighbors/the busybody brigade. The fact that I walk well out into the street when there aren’t any cars keeping roughly 15 to 30 feet from just about anyone and line of sight on everyone around me does not change this.
You're right that avoidance is the best bet here, for the time being.
These are people that have been manipulated and fixed with beliefs inserted into their reptile brain.
This is not the neocortex speaking - arguing on the basis of reason (pointing to a study) will not convince them that a mask is unnecessary away from people, in a field or outdoors.
They must be engaged in the same way they were manipulated - by appealing to emotion. It's a tough nut to crack.
Personally, I figure if I can smell someone smoking as I pass them on the street, even with a KN95 mask on, it's probably a good idea to wear a mask all the time.
I'm all for wearing masks and I do it.
But not when road biking where I very rarely (1 in 20 rides) come within 20 feet of a human being, other than people driving by me at 55 mph.
I also don't wear a mask when running, for the same reason.
Maybe if you're running / biking on the sidewalks of NYC, then sure, wear a mask! But on an empty country road outside of major cities?
I know the chances of transmission between me riding my bike and a pedestrian are low, but it feels easy to be cautious.
Also, people seem to think the virus magically stops at an invisible 6 foot distance whereas in reality you need much more if you're breathing and running where you leave a much bigger trail of aerosolized particles as you run, and there's also wind carrying your breath much further than in a still situation.
I do take mask off for hikes when nobody is in sight but I always put it on when I see people are about to pass. What's annoying is people who don't put their mask on to pass you and don't stop and wait for both sides to have mask on before passing. I've been forced multiple times to abruptly stop and backtrack my steps to maintain distance while fiddling my mask on because the other person kept pressing forward impatiently.
(b) The problem is we don't know, and I'm in a risk group, so I don't want to take chances until something is proven to be safe.
But people also think (without evidence) that momentary contact closer than 6 feet is enough to spread COVID. It's almost certainly not.
You are very very very very unlikely to get COVID passing by a person for 2 seconds without wearing a mask. The infected person would have to sneeze directly into your mouth or something.
Just wear it as a chin-strap and it takes 2s to pull up and adjust. Accept that sometimes, your mask will be your only defense, and then hiking is almost as easy as ever before.
This attitude is why the US is still fighting with COVID.
Yes, it's feasible, if people prioritize getting rid of COVID instead of prioritizing beating their speed record.
And I'll probably get downvoted for this just like my other comments because this is the US. If I made these comments in Singapore or Taiwan I'd probably be upvoted a hundred times.
Then, accept that your own mask is good enough. You don't need to wait for the other person. Like sibling comments said, studies show that being outside and briefly walking by someone is not likely to result in transmission, especially when compared to being indoors with others
The risk of them getting a serious disease caused by the smoke of my cigarette is non existent, if I am far enough the smell also is not strong enough to be of real disturbance, but I see their faces and I don't blame them, since I am the one doing something that is notoriously annoying and it costs me nothing, I don't smoke if there are non smokers around and I can't avoid them or am the only one smoking.
On the other hand I can't stand loud people and when I meet one, I ask them to lower their voices.
Wearing a mask it's the same thing: it costs nothing and wearing one prevents misunderstandings, while also adding a [nobody knows exactly how effective] additional layer of protection that does not hurt.
Best of luck pointing to the actual study. Are you going to print it out and carry it with you?
Please understand, I'm not criticizing you -- except to maybe point out that you place an awful lot of unfounded faith in your fellow human beings.
What won't change is the risk profile of wearing vs not wearing a mask. Wearing a mask despite necessity is an inconvenience, but unlikely to result in harm. Not wearing mask, even if current science says is safe to do so, is still exposure to potential harm that may have been unforeseen. For instance a transmission vector that is not yet a well characterized one. This is why I personally take a dim view to these sorts "following the science" arguments.
It really bothers me when the CEO of that health company was being harrassed for not wearing a mask after he has recovered from an infection, the mask would do nothing for him or anybody else, but he wasn’t using it as a political statement so he was doing wrong?
Some kinds of signaling are useless at best, problematic at worst. But wearing a mask even if you believe you technically don't require one to avoid being contagious seems like a common sense way to promote community during a stressful time to be around strangers - they don't know you, they don't know your medical history, they have no way of knowing when you wait near eachother in the grocery checkout line whether you're carrying antibodies and presumably not capable of being contagious or whether you're just flagrantly ignoring public health advice.
(Ignoring, of course, the subset of people who would inevitably falsely assume they were not capable of being contagious for whatever reasons even if they really could be... we probably all know that friend who swears they had COVID earlier in the year, but did not get tested at the time and have not had an antibody test since to verify. Do we really want those people getting the idea that their anecdotal illness is an opt-out from face coverings in public?)
The many interpretations of public health messaging around the world have shown us pretty well over the last 8 months that many people do really poorly with developing science and/or nuance. "Wear your mask in public, always" removes a lot of room for error, either malicious or just misinformed.
You're right that it's political - except that it has actual detrimental consequences to society to normalize doing unnecessary things, especially when your goal is expressly to divide people (as that's literally the main thrust of what what "political statements" in the form of virtue signalling accomplish).
Rational, well-informed people should wear masks indoors and in busy outdoor areas, and enjoy some fresh air when they can get away from that. Wearing a mask when you don't need to to "reinforce" unnecessary behaviour is irrational, and will continue to make anyone who is anti-mask think that you're not approaching the situation reasonably.
Wearing a mask outdoor: no
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
Here is an article from July about mask usage in Europe.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off...
... which is why I simply wear a mask while hiking. :)
What does it cost you to wear a mask? It's uncomfortable and annoying - I agree! If we make mask-wearing complicated (over nose, under nose, under the chin!) people will just do the most comfortable thing and it'll wind up being completely ineffective.
The coronavirus doesn't care if you are republican or democrat.
Simple rule: wear a mask when there's other people around - your life may not depend on it, but your or someone else's grandmother's might. If a vaccine is truly around the corner, we can actually cause some people not to die by wearing masks. There's just no good reason to be this selfish, prolonging this nightmare in the process.
People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative. I'm not going to object. If that makes them comfortable. But it's also a false sense of comfort. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
That aside, I'm not in a big city. I'm in the suburbs. I'm talking about the local park and such. My morning run is through a local small university, currently closed. I see more deer than people some mornings. In that context, I've seen people from a distance walking alone with a mask on. It's 8 am. No one else around. There's no scientific reason for a mask.
I believe masks are important. They are essential. But that's no justification for unnecessary masks. In fact, we should be conserving masks. Not wearing them when they're not necessary.
That's a big "if". When's the last time you were tested?
Because that's the actual reason to wear a mask. Preventing yourself from getting infected is less relevant than preventing yourself from infecting others.
> A passing squirrel or a bird is not going to infect anyone.
I don't know about those two animals specifically, but it is very much possible for COVID to spread via animals (that is, indeed, in all likelihood how the COVID pandemic started in the first place).
> People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative.
No, it perpetuates a narrative of "it's better to be safe than sorry", which is about as scientific of a narrative as it gets when it comes to infectious diseases. I wear my mask when out walking or hiking specifically because I don't trust others to keep their distance, and because I care more about the possibility that I might inadvertently spread COVID to someone who'd die from it than I do about messing up my beard with a mask.
If someone unexpectedly approaches and gets within 10 yards of me, how long will it take me to put on my mask? Can I do so before that person's within 2 yards?
Better to just leave it on and leave it be rather than spend all day fumbling with it. That is:
> We need a steady state of vigilance.
Wearing a mask when out in public is that steady state. Taking it off because you think you're alone is a deviation from that steady state.
I think the key difference with the outdoors is that aerosols don’t accumulate easily, not that you couldn’t infect someone by blasting them with your breath.
It's analogous to you feeling like you're a safe driver but having passengers asking you to slow down. If you're not judging the danger to others commensurately to them, it seems like the onus should be on you to adjust your behavior.
Also, as others pointed out, this study's idea of "crowded spaces" might not align with your idea of it. If someone with COVID-19 passed me on an average-sized trail path or sidewalk breathing heavily while running, I wouldn't feel safe and I doubt many other reasonable people would either. It's not an issue of outside air vs. inside air as it is whether you end up breathing the same air as others, and you might not be a great judge of when that is or how it applies to this study.
Also, if you're interested in backing up your actions with studies, you should note that "social distancing" meaning 6ft distance which I'm assuming you're referring to has been debunked by MIT and Oxford studies.
Figuring out exactly what's safe and not is not clear cut, which is why simple rules like "wear a mask outside" is so important, because we clearly can't all be trusted to make good judgment calls.